Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds nothing on top of that: it does not say whether the followup is public or private by default, who can see it, or that the problem must already exist. For a mutation tool at this bar, the description contributes no behavioral context.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One short, front-loaded sentence with zero filler, which is the right shape. It is efficient but so terse that it reads as under-specified rather than deliberately compact.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the schema fully covers the three parameters. However, for a non-idempotent write tool in a family with several near-identical 'add followup' siblings, the description leaves the agent without routing or visibility guidance, which is a real gap relative to the context's complexity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so problemId, content and is_private (1=private, 0=public) are all documented structurally; the schema baseline of 3 applies. The phrase 'comment/followup' loosely clarifies what content represents, but no default for is_private or relationship between the two required params is added.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description gives a concrete verb plus resource ('Add a comment/followup to a problem'), which clearly separates it from the get/list/problem-update siblings. It stops short of distinguishing itself from the other additive siblings that share its name pattern (glpi_add_followup, glpi_add_change_followup, glpi_add_problem_solution), so the agent must infer the split from the name alone.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no when-to-use language, no prerequisites, and no alternatives named. The sibling set contains glpi_add_problem_solution and a generic glpi_add_followup, and the description does nothing to tell the agent which of these is correct for a given intent.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.